New vs. Old: 2013 Porsche Boxster vs. 2005 Acura NSX-T

How do you choose between a 20th-century supercar and a millennial sports car?

Driving a new Acura NSX in 2005 was a bit like trying to text on a Motorola StarTAC. Yes, that was the best mobile phone of the 1990s, but it was hardly the best tool for the job. And yes, Acura had updated the NSX over its life, but by 2005 this aluminum supercar was past its sell-by date. Its V-6 still sounded as good as it did when it arrived in 1990; it was just that the 290-hp NSX couldn’t compete in a streetscape filled with 400-hp Corvettes, 911 Turbos, and AMGs. And certainly not with its $90,000 sticker.

This pristine 2005 open-top NSX-T has logged only 40,000 miles in the past nine years, while its value has traveled in reverse. Depreciation, that great economic equalizer, has dropped the going price for an ’05 NSX to less than $60,000. That about matches the price of a new, 265-hp Porsche Boxster with a few options—and they all have a few options. And that got us thinking: Which mid-engine car would we rather own and drive?

Bottom left: Does your supercar have a tape deck? Acura's did. Otherwise, the NSX's driving environment is spectacular. You sit low, with great view out.

It’s impossible to build a new car like the NSX today, and therein lies a lot of its appeal. The driving position is akin to sitting on a skateboard. You’re low and exposed, and the road is so close that 30 mph feels like 50. The instrument panel is also low, and the vast windshield seems to end at your shins. The low-slung cowl means that the steering wheel, even when tilted and telescoped, sits down at stomach level. Your forward view in traffic looks squarely into the license plate of the vehicle ahead. Pull up to a crosswalk and you’ll see pedestrians’ ankles as they walk by.

In the Boxster, on the other hand, it feels as if you’re sitting in a Jacuzzi and peeking over the sides. Thanks to current safety regulations, the cowl and the tops of the doors are high and visibility is thus impeded.

The Boxster's sills might be higher than the NSX's, but its control relationships are perfect. Check out the shifter's proximity to the wheel.

There’s less difference in the way each car sounds, and we’re not talking about their stereo systems (which, in the NSX, plays cassettes). Each six-cylinder engine emits a snarl. Step into the NSX’s throttle above 2500 rpm and the engine grows an extra set of you-know-whats as it pulls hard to its 8000-rpm redline. There’s not much exhaust noise in the NSX; it’s almost all induction racket played just for the occupants. In the Boxster, you hear the pops and whines of a water-cooled flat-six trying its hardest to sound air-cooled. Twirl the tachometer and the Porsche’s metallic noises gather into a chorus.

The Boxster also has to work hard to keep up with the more powerful NSX. Acura’s 3.2-liter V-6 makes 25 more horses and 18 more pound-feet of torque than the ­Boxster’s 2.7-liter flat-six. In the Acura, the run to 60 mph takes 5.0 seconds. The Porsche achieves the same speed in 5.6 seconds. Next to the NSX, the Boxster’s six feels fairly torqueless, especially at low revs.

With every new model, carmakers brag about a percentage increase in structural rigidity. If you’ve ever thought that these numbers were pulled out of thin air, drive an old car. The NSX’s aluminum structure is nowhere near as solid as the Boxster’s steel foundation. We might be more forgiving if the 3123-pound NSX weighed less than the 3035-pound Boxster, but in the NSX, the steering column shakes, the dashboard quivers, and the A-pillars flutter when the tires are on anything other than smooth pavement. Although this doesn’t seem to affect handling, it cheapens the experience and reminds us that the NSX was engineered in the 1980s, when almost every car was even more flaccid.

When the NSX entered its final phase in 2002, it received chassis alterations that added wider rear tires, a thicker rear anti-roll bar, and stiffer front springs. On modern Dunlop Direzza Sport Z1 tires, the car we drove had a ridiculous amount of easily exploited grip. Its electric power steering offers assistance at low speeds but seems to go away as you drive faster. Effort builds naturally through the wheel as cornering forces increase. Yes, there’s some body roll, but the NSX sits so low that it never feels sloppy. Matching revs on downshifts is easy, and the shifter slots neatly into each gear.

But step into the Boxster and it takes only a few corners to realize that the Porsche can do everything the Acura does, only better. There’s more grip, the steering is just as accurate and talkative, body motions are kept in check, and the structure doesn’t shiver like a wet dog. The brakes respond more quickly and stop the Boxster faster. We’d call it a draw on the shifter. There’s more force required to shift the Porsche, but it slots just as neatly into gear as the Acura’s.

The Boxster is clearly the better-driving car, acting and smelling like the new ride it is, and benefiting from a multitude of engineering advances. Judged as a new car, the NSX falls short. Judged as a piece of history, though, we can’t help but regard the Acura as an emerging classic. There may never be another car like the landmark NSX. It changed the way everybody, including Ferrari, built their supercars, making everyday usability part of the exotic brief. And this was a supercar, remember, so it has a greater level of amusement built in than a base Boxster does. For everyday driving as well as the occasional track day, we’d choose the Boxster. But we’d keep an eye out for an older, clean NSX. Earlier models, the ones with pop-up headlights, go for $25,000 to $45,000, you know.

Lowriders

The Acura NSX’s center of gravity (+) is just 17.5 inches off the pavement, an inch below the Porsche Boxster’s and tied with Chevrolet’s C7 Corvette for the lowest we’ve measured.

Runnin Down a Dream

While depreciation can put once out-of-reach vehicles on your reality-based shopping list, remember that running costs are reliable crushers of automotive fantasy. To wit:

Cost-of-ownership estimates provided by Vincentric, based on 7500 annual miles for sports cars and 12,000 for others. Residual values from Black Book.

*AccuPayment estimates payments under various scenarios for budgeting and informational purposes only. AccuPayment does not state credit or lease terms that are available from a creditor or lessor, and AccuPayment is not an offer or promotion of a credit or lease transaction.

*AccuPayment estimates payments under various scenarios for budgeting and informational purposes only. AccuPayment does not state credit or lease terms that are available from a creditor or lessor, and AccuPayment is not an offer or promotion of a credit or lease transaction.